expel any or all aliens at its pleasure. Vattel, lib. 1, c. 19 § 213; 1 Phillimore, c. 18 § 321; Mr. Marcy, in Koszta's Case, Wharton's International Law Digest, § 198. See also Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S., 47, 62; Merlin, Repertoire de Jurisprudence, Domicile, § 13, quoted in the case, above cited, of In re Adam, 1 Moore, P, C., 460, 472, 473.

Chinese laborers, therefore, like all other aliens residing in the United States for a shorter or longer time, are entitled, so long as they are permitted by the government of the United States to remain in the country, to the safeguards of the Constitution, and to the protection of the laws, in regard to their rights of person and of property, and to their civil and criminal responsibility. But they continue to be aliens, having taken no steps towards becoming citizens, and incapable of becoming such under the naturalization laws; and therefore remain subject to the power of Congress to expel them, or to order them to be removed and deported from the country, whenever in its judgment their removal is necessary or expedient for the public interest. .

The question whether, and upon what conditions, these aliens shall be permitted to remain within the United States being one to be determined by the political departments of the government, the judicial department cannot properly express an opinion upon the wisdom, the policy or the justice of the measures enacted by Congress in the exercise of the powers confided to it by the Constitution over this subject.

Upon careful consideration of the subject, the only conclusion which appears to us to be consistent with the principles of international law, with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and with the previous decisions of this court, is that in each of these cases the judgment of the Circuit Court, dismissing the writ of habeas corpus, is right and must be Affirmed.

[CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, JUSTICE BREWER, and JUSTICE FIELD rendered dissenting opinions.]

I

XIV. JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.

CHISHOLM, EXECUTOR, v. GEORGIA.

2 Dallas, 419. Decided 1793.

[Chisholm, executor, brought an action of assumpsit against the State of Georgia. Return having been made, Attorney-General Randolph moved that unless the State of Georgia should cause an appearance to be made in its behalf, judgment should be entered against the said State and a writ of inquiry of damages be awarded. When the case came before the court for consideration, the counsel for the State of Georgia made a protest in writing against the court's taking jurisdiction of the case, but declined to take any part in arguing the question. The judges delivered their opinions seriatim.]

WILSON, J. This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State; certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is, whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others more important still; and may perhaps be ultimately resolved into one no less radical than this-"Do the people of the United States form a Nation?"

A cause so conspicuous and interesting, should be carefully and accurately viewed from every possible point of sight. I shall examine it, 1st. By the principles of general jurisprudence. 2d. By the laws and practice of particular states and kingdoms. From the law of nations little or no illustration of this subject can be expected. By that law the several states and governments spread over our globe are considered as forming a society, not a nation. It has only been by a very few comprehensive minds, such as those of Elizabeth and the Fourth Henry, that this last great idea has been even contemplated. 3dly, and chiefly, I shall examine the important question before us, by the constitution of the United

States, and the legitimate result of that valuable instrument.

III. I am, thirdly and chiefly, to examine the important question now before us, by the constitution of the United States, and the legitimate result of that valuable instrument. Under this view the question is naturally subdivided into two others. 1. Could the constitution of the United States vest a jurisdiction over the State of Georgia? 2. Has that constitution vested such jurisdiction in this court?

Concerning the prerogative of kings, and concerning the sovereignty of States, much has been said and written; but little has been said and written concerning a subject much more dignified and important, the majesty of the people. The well

known address used by Demosthenes, when he harangued and animated his assembled countrymen, was, "O men of Athens." With the strictest propriety, therefore, classical and political, our national scene opens with the most magnificent object which the nation could present. "The people of the United States" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen States, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by articles of confederation. To the purposes of public strength and felicity that confederacy was totally inadequate. A requisition on the several States terminated its legislative authority; executive or judicial authority it had none. In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defense, and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and established the present constitution. By that constitution legislative power is vested, executive power is vested, judicial power is vested.

The question now fairly opens to our view, could the people of those States, among whom were those of Georgia, bind those States, and Georgia among the others, by the legislative, executive, and judicial power so vested? If the principles on which I have founded myself are just and true, this question must, unavoidably, receive an affirmative answer. If those States were the work of those people, those people, and that I may apply the case closely, the people of Georgia, in particular, could alter, as they pleased, their former work; to any given degree, they could diminish as well as enlarge it. Any or all of the former State powers they could extinguish or transfer. The inference which necessarily results is, that the constitution ordained and established by those

people, and still closely to apply the case, in particular by the people of Georgia, could vest jurisdiction or judicial power over those States and over the State of Georgia in particular.

The next question under this head, is, Has the constitution done so? Did those people mean to exercise this their undoubted power? These questions may be resolved, either by fair and conclusive deductions, or by direct and explicit declarations. In order, ultimately to discover whether the people of the United States intended to bind those States by the judicial power vested by the national constitution, a previous inquiry will naturally be, did those people intend to bind those States by the legislative power vested by that constitution? The articles of confederation, it is well known, did not operate upon individual citizens; but operated only upon States. This defect was remedied by the national constitution, which, as all allow, has an operation on individual citizens. But if an opinion, which some seem to entertain, be just, the defect remedied on one side was balanced by a defect introduced on the other; for they seem to think that the present constitution operates only on individual citizens, and not on States. This opinion, however, appears to be altogether unfounded. When certain laws of the States are declared to be "subject to the revision. and control of the Congress," it cannot, surely, be contended that the legislative power of the national government was meant to have no operation on the several States. The fact uncontrovertibly established in one instance, proves the principle in all other instances to which the facts will be found to apply. We may then infer that the people of the United States intended to bind the several States by the legislative power of the national government.

In order to make the discovery, at which we ultimately aim, a second previous inquiry will naturally be, Did the people of the United States intend to bind the several States by the executive power of the national government? The affirmative answer to the former question directs, unavoidably, an affirmative answer to this. Ever since the time of Bracton, his maxim, I believe, has been deemed a good one- "Supervacuum esset leges condere, nisi esset qui leges tueretur. "2 "It would be superfluous to make laws, unless those laws, when made, were to be enforced." When the laws are plain, and the application of them is uncontroverted, they are enforced immediately by the executive authority of government. When the application of them is doubtful or intricate, the inter

1 Art. 1, s. 10.

21 Brac., 107.

position of the judicial authority becomes necessary. The same principle, therefore, which directed us from the first to the second step, will direct us to the third and last step of our deduction. Fair and conclusive deduction, then, evinces that the people of the United States did vest this court with jurisdiction over the State of Georgia. The same truth may be deduced from the declared objects and the general texture of the constitution of the United States. One of its declared objects is, to form a union more perfect than, before that time, had been formed. Before that time the Union possessed legislative, but unenforced legislative power over the States. Nothing could be more natural than to intend that this legislative power should be enforced by powers executive and judicial. Another declared object is "to establish justice." This points, in a particular manner, to the judicial authority. And when we view this object in conjunction with the declaration, "that no State shall pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts," we shall probably think that this object points, in a particular manner, to the jurisdiction of the court over the several States. What good purpose could this constitutional provision secure if a State might pass a law impairing the obligation of its own contracts, and be amenable, for such a violation of right, to no controlling judiciary power? We have seen, that on principles of general jurisprudence, a State, for the breach of a contract, may be liable for damages. A third declared object is, "to insure domestic tranquillity." This tranquillity is most likely to be disturbed by controversies between States. These consequences will be most peaceably and effectually decided by the establishment and by the exercise of a superintending judicial authority. By such exercise and establishment, the law of nations-the rule between contending States-will be enforced among the several States in the same manner as municipal law.

Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national government complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive and judiciary; and in all those powers extending over the whole nation. Is it congruous that, with regard to such purposes, any man or body of men, any person, natural or artificial, should be permitted to claim successfully an entire exemption from the jurisdiction of the national government? Would not such claims, crowned with success, be repugnant to our very existence as a nation? When so many trains of deduction, coming